By Orson Scott Card
It has truly been a pleasure to converse — or at least take turns speaking — with Dr. Mohler. His attitude of quiet analysis is a refreshing change from the vitriol and slander that I’ve seen from so many of his denomination when they talk about my religion.
His final message is reassuring in many ways. First, his assurance that Mormons can be good citizens and should not be deprived of their right to an equal place in the American political scene should be adopted as the guideline for people of all denominations.
It is hard to think of any religion that is not persecuted somewhere. The world is full of religions because people do not agree about the nature or even the existence of divinity; yet America was founded on a commitment to the idea that differing opinions about God should not be factored into a person’s eligibility for public office.
When Dr. Mohler quotes Paul’s warning that the Church of Christ should reject “a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you,” we Mormons wholeheartedly agree. We believe, and history supports, that the “traditional Christianity” that Dr. Mohler so able explicates is remote indeed from the gospel that Paul taught.
So I am happy to accept the formulation suggested by Dr. Mohler’s last sentence: “Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity — it is incompatible with ‘traditional Christian orthodoxy.’”
Amen! Absolutely correct! We send out missionaries to every country that will allow them to enter precisely because we believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is incompatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.”
At the same time, we recognize that “traditional Christian orthodoxy” represents a sincere desire and effort, on the part of millions of believers throughout the world, to teach and live by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Despite our deep differences of belief over the nature of God and his plans for his children, we recognize that those who believe in the other Christian faiths have taken a giant step closer to fulfilling the intentions of our Lord. They are, in heart and mind, Christians.
We ask only the same favor in return. Let’s take that word “traditional” and make use of it. Instead of saying that we are “not Christian,” which is an obvious falsehood by any rational, widely accepted definition of the word Christian, let us agree that Mormons are “nontraditional Christians.”
We’ll live with that label quite happily, because it’s true. We are Christians, but nontraditional ones. And if we ever become traditional, we’ll have no reason to exist as a separate religion!
Meanwhile, history provides reason for optimism. The pope, while proclaiming that the Catholic Church and, despite defects, the Orthodox churches, represent the only authoritative Church of Christ, he still allows room for the “nonapostolic” Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Pentacostalists, and others that proclaim the name of Christ to be considered “Christian communities” and to have value.
It took less than 500 years for Protestantism to graduate to a “tradition” instead of a “reformation” or, in the former Catholic view, a “heresy.”
Baptists, who were once viewed as a wild-eyed sect of the American lower classes, have now been around long enough to be “traditional” right along with the older Protestant denominations.
Now we live in a world where all believers in Christ — traditional or non — are assailed and persecuted. There is no shortage of atheists in foreign countries and in America who would like to limit the ability of any believer in a revelatory religion to achieve full participation and leadership in American politics.
The intense criticism, both public and whispered, focused on President Bush precisely because he believes that God has intervened and continues to intervene in his life should be the wakeup call to all of us.
Born-again Christians and Mormons agree on this: God is alive and working in the world, and his Spirit touches the lives of the faithful, offering guidance, comfort, and even miraculous intervention. This earns Baptists and Mormons the ridicule or hatred of the anti-religious extremists, who declare that our beliefs are a form of madness and proof that we are unfit for public trust.
Call us “nontraditional Christians” and continue to encourage your communicants not to believe our doctrines; we’ll happily continue to call you “traditional Christians” and teach people why they should believe our doctrines.
But when it comes to politics, let’s make common cause to maintain the full participation in American political life of believers in a living, active God whose Spirit touches the lives of all his children.
Let’s work together to try to end the persecution of Christians throughout the world, for the enemies of Christ make no distinction between “traditional” and “nontraditional” Christians when they’re looking for targets of their fear and hatred.
On these issues, we are on the same side.
And every “traditional Christian” who, like Dr. Mohler, will include us nontraditional Christians as equally entitled to participation in all aspects of American public life, without encouraging people to vote against Mormon candidates because of their faith alone, will find that we Mormons are good friends to have in a world that is increasingly perilous for followers of Christ.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Oh, and in your rebuttal make sure you rebut the entire posting and not just the half that you quoted:
In 1973 a much more mature Francis Haines wrote, “Historians say that history needs to be rewritten for each succeeding generation, not because history has changed, but because the new generation is asking new questions of the historian, questions that can best be answered by an examination of the records of the past from a new viewpoint” (The Western Historical Quarterly. “Go Write A Book: Nez Perce, Horses, and History”. Vol.4 No.2 (Apr. 1973) p.131). This is exactly what I am doing. Now let’s look at the facts in evidence in the case of the Nez Perce Appaloosa and other uniquely American (North and South) Horses.
The Nez Perce word for the Appaloosa was “Nimiipuu Sikem” translated as “new breed” (Dudley, C. (2007). “The Legendary Appaloosa”. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press. p.6). The term itself justifies the supposition that this horse was a mixture of other breeds of horses. The Nez Perce had “special medicine” that they used to produce this horse (smaller and more lithe than the Spanish Stallion) and was a mixture of old and new world breeds (Roe, F.G. (1955) “The Indian and The Horse”. Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 151-154). The Appaloosa has only recently been introduced to Argentina and Uruguay and Haines quotes, from one of his books, Pedro Sarciat, a South American authority, on this introduction of the “spotted horses of the country” as being “a modern importation” from the north since 1920. This scholar deplores their popularity among the people there as a “color fad, not in the Spanish tradition” (Haines, F. (1951) “The Appaloosa Horse”. Lewiston, ID. p. 36). It is understandable that this scholar would feel so inclined based on his Spanish background. It is interesting that, if the horses were brought from Spain, as you attest, that the horses of South America did not evolve in the same fashion as they did here. Pintos and Appaloosas are extremely rare in South America (I don’t recall seeing one in my many journeys to the pampas or in the two years that I lived among the gauchos). Combine this prejudice of the Spanish with the same prejudice to White Horses had among the English and the Appaloosa becomes an enigma, especially given the difference in its stature from either English or Spanish stock (Dobie, J.F. (1936). “Tales of the Mustang”. Austin, TX p. 40-41). The “Range men in America … have never had much use for paint horses” Dobie quotes, adding that Wyatt Earp once said, “I have never known a paint horse that knew anything himself” (Dobie, J.F. ed. (1940) “Mustangs and Cow Horses” Austin, TX. p.247). Denhardt confirms this when he states, “Regardless of the popularity of the paint with children, Indians, and certain Westerners, there is an old belief that a paint, because of his color, is worthless (Denhardt, R.M. (1947). “The Horse of the Americas”. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. p196). Now if both English and Spanish detested the paint and Appaloosa so vehemently why did they bring them here and why are they not found in the same proportion in South America? The reason is because they are a uniquely North American Horse where only 31% of the mtDNA is traceable to Spanish origins (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Mitochondrial DNA and the Origins of the American Horse" Vol 99 No 16 (August 6, 2002). pp. 10905-10910). Denhardt, also, makes the case that if the paint derived from solely Spanish stock there would have been no Pintos (Denhardt, “The Horse of the Americas” p. 197).
Darwin (your friend) made the case that the horses of the Falklands were smaller and weaker then the Spanish breeds and the horses of the pampas are larger and have courser hair then the Spanish breeds. Says he, “the new sub-breeds in such cases are not descended from any single pair, but from many individuals which have varied in different degrees, but in the same general manner (Darwin, C. (1898) “The Descent of Man”. New York. p.188). We take this along with the eye witness, in written testimony in the archives of Jalapa, Veracruz, stating that a wild horse was seen and captured, running with the wild deer about the time of the Spanish conquest.
Roe writes, “The reader will probably share my own diffidence concerning the wisdom or even practicability of basing any conclusions respecting Hispano-American coloration upon ‘the color of the original wild horse of the Old World.’ It may very possibly be the case that no attempt in this direction will bring us much closer to a real knowledge of the influences or processes which have impressed such a characteristically different appearance upon the North American descendant. None the less the subject is one which cannot be entirely passed over without an effort” (as you are finding), but this was in 1955 and today, 55 years later, there is much more evidence, as you will see laid out in my book, showing that the mystery is all but solved (Roe, “The Indian and the Horse”. p. 140).
Another unique feature of the wild horse of the pampas, known as “los baguales” (extinct within the last 300 years) is physiological. Citing Cunninghame Graham, Dobie writes, “Most horses, in fact all breeds of horses, have six lumbar vertebrae. A most careful observer, the late Edward Losson, a professor in the Agricultural College of Santa Catalina near Buenos Aires, has noted the remarkable fact that the horses of the pampas have only five” (Dobie, “Mustangs and Cow Horses”. pp. 192-93). And Roe further testifies, “whatever influence may or may not have been exerted upon the Hispano-American ‘Indian’ horse by the Hispano-Arabian ‘breed of Córdoba’ or even by any obscure and less aristocratic ‘poor relation’ of the clan, it is doubtful, to say the least, whether the Arabian ancestor can be regarded as a serious representative of the original feral horse of the Old World” (Roe, “The Indian and the Horse”. pp. 138-39).
And so, as you see, you take facts here and there to paint a whole picture. In putting this together, I showed you a few more sources, from books I have studied, that are utilized in my bibliography.
Now, back to Haines article that we have been discussing, He unequivocally states that the Nez Perce had horses at the time that they met the first white man. These Native Americans had become remarkable horsemen while the tribes around them lacked the skills that they enjoyed. They had bred, and had herds of innumerable Nimiipuu Sikem (Appaloosa), a “new breed” of horse by the time Lewis and Clark discovered them. Such a breeding program would have not produced the number of a unique horse they would have had based on the time period when they were supposed to have acquired the horse, especially given Haines statement in the article that we have been discussing:
"When we consider how important horses were to the early Spaniards, how frequently they are mentioned in various accounts, and how losses of two or three animals at a time were noted, we may be quite sure that no substantial loss of animals would have gone unrecorded" (113).
By the way, that is Mr. Summa Cum Laude to you!
An interesting note as a sidebar:
You may want to tune into "Apocalypse Island" on the History Channel at 10 pm eastern Saturday Night. This program talks a lot about the spread and influence of the Maya throughout the Americas from Chile to Hopewell in Ohio (although the premise is the fulfillment of the Maya Calendar). This influence seems to follow the path that the Book of Mormon people took and verifies a past discussion I think I had with you on Book of Mormon geography.
Anyway, just a suggestion.
Mormons are not Christians. The Bible reveals that Christians are disciples (Acts 11:26) and that disciples continue in the words of Christ (John 8:31). Christ and his apostles taught one God (Mark.12:29,32; 1Cor.8:4-6). Joseph Smith taught "three Gods" (Joseph Smith Teachings - Ensign, Mar 2008, 68-73). Mormon's continue with the words of Joseph Smith, Christians continue with the words of Christ. The Jesus of Mormonism is "a God" (LDS Bible Dictionary - God) instead of "God" like the apostles of Jesus revealed (John 1:1).
Johnny,
Maybe the following will explain the concept to you a little better. You should not make statements until you know the facts:
Mormons are often accused of hiding their history and doctrines from the general populace of the church, as well as its investigators, out of fear that in breaching the subjects they will drive away the masses. One such doctrine that is highly susceptible to this unwarranted criticism is the revelation given by Joseph Smith detailing the plurality of Gods.
Joseph prefaced a sermon delivered on June 16, 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois as follows:
“I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it?”
The notion that Latter-day Saints wish to sweep this doctrine under the rug is laughable in all of its aspects. Anyone who has ever entertained the missionaries is aware of this doctrine. It is a doctrine that sets the church apart from all the rest of Christendom and that makes the Church of Jesus Christ unique. Without it the church is no more enlightened than all of the rest of modern apostate Christianity. The doctrine is generally taught in the very first missionary discussion when the missionaries teach the nature of God in the context of Joseph Smith’s first vision:
“…I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me… When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”
From the very beginning Joseph Smith knew and taught that God, the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, were two separate and distinct beings. He saw both of them, together, with Jesus standing on the Father’s right hand. So if they are separate beings and God the Father is God and Jesus Christ is God then there are two Gods.
At Jesus’ baptism three distinct personages manifested themselves. Jesus was physically present in the flesh. God, the Father, spoke from heaven declaring Jesus to be His son. The Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove. Jesus was not a ventriloquist throwing His voice from the heavens and He was not a magician pulling a dove out of thin air. These were distinct manifestations of three separate entities (Mark 1:10,11; Luke 3:22).
However the creeds of men say:
“They are not three Gods, but one God… And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.”
“We believe … in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father… .”
Tertullian, who coined the term “Trinity” and was one of the ante-Nicene fathers of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries A.D., agreed with Joseph Smith and those Nicene and post-Nicene fathers who came after him distorted the true interpretation and meaning of the word. The term “Trinity” was originally coined in response to a false doctrine being circulated by Praxeas (whom Tertullian called a heretic) who taught the Godhead in the same manner in which Athanasius and the council of Nice later taught it. Praxeas taught the sameness of the Father and the Son to which the author of the original definition of the “Trinity” replied:
“My assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other… Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?”
“So it is either the Father or the Son, and the day is not the same as the night; nor is the Father the same as the Son, in such a way that Both of them should be One, and One or the Other should be Both,—an opinion which the most conceited “Monarchians” maintain. He Himself, they say, made Himself a Son to Himself. Now a Father makes a Son, and a Son makes a Father; and they who thus become reciprocally related out of each other to each other cannot in any way by themselves simply become so related to themselves, that the Father can make Himself a Son to Himself, and the Son render Himself a Father to Himself… Now all this must be the device of the devil—this excluding and severing one from the other—since by including both together in one under pretence of the Monarchy, he causes neither to be held and acknowledged, so that He is not the Father, since indeed He has not the Son; neither is He the Son, since in like manner He has not the Father: for while He is the Father, He will not be the Son…
“It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. For if He calls Him Son, and if the Son is none other than He who has proceeded from the Father Himself, and if the Word has proceeded from the Father Himself, He will then be the Son, and not Himself from whom He proceeded. For the Father Himself did not proceed from Himself. Now, you who say that the Father is the same as the Son, do really make the same Person both to have sent forth from Himself (and at the same time to have gone out from Himself as) that Being which is God.”
The Bible tells us that these Divine Beings are neither one in substance (material) nor coequal. It is clear that God, the Father, is ultimately in charge for he sent Jesus Christ to Earth to redeem mankind and Jesus followed the order.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16,17).
There are several great truths in this verse, two of which debunk the claims of the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds. 1) Jesus is not coequal with God the Father inasmuch as God the Father “sent” His son to the Earth, and 2) Jesus Christ and God the Father are two separate and distinct personages as shown in the very act of “begetting”. These two principles are later born out once more when Jesus declares, “I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Again, Jesus is not going unto Himself and He sets a distinct hierarchy of the Gods.
There are some Protestant faiths, or at least the clergy of these faiths, that do understand the separate nature of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as evidenced by the following in “Morning Star,” a weekly newsletter of Wycliffe College, by Alan L. Hayes, director of the Toronto School of Theology:
“It seems to me preferable for a number of reasons to say clearly that YHWH is (at least in his appearances to human beings) Christ himself — that is, not God the Father, but God the Son.
“The pre-eminent reason for saying so is that, when we pray to God, we do so ‘through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ Our trinitarian theology affirms that the only access which any human being can have to God the Father is through the Son. ‘No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.’ If the Father appeared and spoke to Moses in the burning bush; if he communicated directly to the prophets; if he was worshipped by Israel without the necessity of a mediator, then the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity is mistaken. …
“The idea of Christ’s divinity [as it related to Monarchism and the modern Orthodox conception of the Trinity] and the doctrine of the Trinity were added in later centuries by the ascetic Greek philosophers who by then had taken control of the Church” [brackets mine].
Just as Jesus was sent by the Father the third member of the Godhead is sent by Jesus Christ, through permission of the Father, again setting up a divine hierarchy, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me” (John 15:26).
But what of the scriptures that say they are one?
“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (1 John 5:7).
Besides the fact that 1 John 5:7 in the original Greek, as well as in the Latin Vulgate, only says, “That there are three witnessing,” and excludes the remainder of the verse that was later introduced by a Trinitarian believing monk, the scriptures must agree in harmony of doctrine if they are to be believed. One verse cannot cancel out another and so it is necessary to discover what this “oneness” signifies since the scriptures are clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinct and separate individuals.
The best explanation of this “oneness” comes from the Bible and from John himself as he details Jesus’ prayer for His disciples:
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:20-23)
You can read the rest of my article at http://logicalsanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bereshith.pdf which goes into detail on the original Hebrew of the Bible and leaves no doubt.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.